"They are politicians!" – the Politics thread

Topic

Sponsored by General Martok, (Lord Vetinari declined to be involved) here’s the thread for covering political goings on.

Replies

Okay there is one, Potanin, but he’s still pconnected to Nemstov and Magnitsky.

My point being corporate Russia and corporate America ate distinctly different and one is way worse (It’s corporate Russia, btw)

I think we have to try to get a quid pro quo in which there is something for everyone and the arms race stops (the Americans are chiefly to blame for starting that up again, thanks mr Bush). Russia is never going to do everything we like.

Christian wrote:

Was that ever for the West to allow? Ukraine was trying to maintain its national integrity, which is what any nation will do in that kind of situation.

Crimea has a really weird history, but I think Russia has more dibs on it than Ukraine.

Anonymous wrote:

Name one Oligarch Philanthropist.

According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium during the fire. Upon hearing news of the fire, Nero returned to Rome to organize a relief effort, which he paid for from his own funds.[54] Nero’s contributions to the relief extended to personally taking part in the search for and rescue of victims of the blaze, spending days searching the debris without even his bodyguards.[citation needed] After the fire, Nero opened his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless, and arranged for food supplies to be delivered in order to prevent starvation among the survivors.[54]

When are we going to kick this piece of shit out of NATO?

DavidM wrote:

Tim wrote:

Name one Oligarch Philanthropist.

According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium during the fire. Upon hearing news of the fire, Nero returned to Rome to organize a relief effort, which he paid for from his own funds.[54] Nero’s contributions to the relief extended to personally taking part in the search for and rescue of victims of the blaze, spending days searching the debris without even his bodyguards.[citation needed] After the fire, Nero opened his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless, and arranged for food supplies to be delivered in order to prevent starvation among the survivors.[54]

Yeah but Josephus says Tacitus is full of shit.

That moment when you find yourself agreeing with Nigel Farage :scream:

He says the PM struck the deal because he wants to avoid another extension to the Brexit deadline, which would “damage the Conservative Party in the polls”.
“He wants to bounce us into this new treaty before we wake up,” he says.
“It’s the same story every time – it’s about the Tory party, not the country”.

Anonymous wrote:

<iframe title=”Erdogan’s Ambitions Go Beyond Syria. He Says He Wants Nuclear Weapons.” class=”wp-embedded-content” sandbox=”allow-scripts” security=”restricted” src=”https://www.nytimes.com/svc/oembed/html/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F10%2F20%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Ferdogan-turkey-nuclear-weapons-trump.html#?secret=LmFCvYw1nz&#8221; data-secret=”LmFCvYw1nz” scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″></iframe>

When are we going to kick this piece of shit out of NATO?

I don’t know if you can kick a member-state out of NATO. The prevailing wisdom being that all the member-states adhere to their democratic elections so that the bad foreign policy of one member-states administration is just that, one administration, and not indicative of the country as a whole. Erdogans been a major part of Turkey for a long time but he’s only been president for one term before re-election. The annoying thing about Turkey is that the regime tends to be that the prime ministers become presidents.

As far as i know in the available articles there is a process for a member-state to leave, but not to force one out. Happy to defer to more learned posters.

If Turkey gets nukes, by God I hope Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Cyprus and Armenia all get nukes too. Still I don’t see it happening. Israel is probably going to stop that.

I don’t hope that. As a deterrent, sure, but it would take a lot to convince me that nuclear arms proliferation is good.

I’m not sure of the future of the region. There’s a part of me that thinks the UN and Nato and the ICC and the Paris Treaty will go the way of the League of Nations. In practical terms, that doesnt make much sense and the benefit clearly outweighs the detriment. But the governance of international law has become spineless in recent times. You wouldn’t get something like the ICTY these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Crimea has a really weird history, but I think Russia has more dibs on it than Ukraine.

The Soviet Union made Crimea part of Ukraine in the fifties, and that’s how it remained (as an autonomous region) until 2014. When a region has been part of a nation for sixty years, no government would allow a foreign power to just annex it.

Christian wrote:

arjandirkse wrote:

Crimea has a really weird history, but I think Russia has more dibs on it than Ukraine.

The Soviet Union made Crimea part of Ukraine in the fifties, and that’s how it remained (as an autonomous region) until 2014. When a region has been part of a nation for sixty years, no government would allow a foreign power to just annex it.

But shouldn’t the people in the region have more of a say than the politicians in Kiev? Of course Russia has double standards in this regards as they would never let Chechnya break off.

There is kind of an ironic thing in that Russia is sort of doing the same in ex-Soviet regions as the West did when breaking up the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Russia supports all the independence movements like the Abkhaz, the Transnistrians, etc to have a say in the politics of those neighboring countries and to weaken their political power, like we supported the independence of the Croats and the Lithuanians etc. to weaken Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. And now Croatia and Lithuania are in the EU.

I can’t imagine Russia supporting Transnistrian self-determination.

I can imagine Russia supporting Transistria as an annexed-state as part of the former Soviet Union. Same with Abkhazia.

Talking about the “West” supporting the self-determination of, Croatia for example, is markedly different to Russia supporting the independence of Transistria. Notwithstanding that some of the most grievous war crimes in modern history are recorded as being committed by Milosovic and Karadziv, the regional interest in Transnistria as former “Russian” land should be apparent. It’s not equatable.

Anonymous wrote:

Talking about the “West” supporting the self-determination of, Croatia for example, is markedly different to Russia supporting the independence of Transistria. Notwithstanding that some of the most grievous war crimes in modern history are recorded as being committed by Milosovic and Karadziv, the regional interest in Transnistria as former “Russian” land should be apparent. It’s not equatable.

It’s not exactly the same, nothing ever is. But the tactic is similar and the motives are similarly cynical, it’s not altruism.

Croatia is also guilty of war cimes and they ran concentration camps, like Serbia. There are no angels here.

Anonymous wrote:

I like Kotkin’s view on Russia and China, Russia is a mere distraction:

<iframe title=”Stephen Kotkin: Sphere of Influence III – The Chip on the Shoulder” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/7pUZK_J6cL0?feature=oembed&#8221; allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=”” width=”1060″ height=”596″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

I just watched the first 20 minutes of this. Pretty interesting, Arjan

I also take your point above. Global politics is rarely without quid pro quo (yes, that was deliberate).

Kotkin is really great, and he’s funny. (He also sounds like Joe Pesci) He also wrote an autobiograpghy of Stalin which got great reviews.

Anonymous wrote:

But shouldn’t the people in the region have more of a say than the politicians in Kiev?

Generally speaking, sure. And I would be in favour of that even considering Russia’s double standards and even considering that the fact that the majority in Crimea is ethnically Russian is due to the fact that the Soviets committed genocide against the Tartar population in the thirties.
In spite of these things, I would support a peaceful progress towards Crimean independence or possibly its becoming part of Russia.
*
That is, however, a different thing from militarily invading a sovereign country with the aim of splitting off and annexing a part of it, like Russia did. And let’s remember that that’s what we’re talking about here – not supporting a right to independence, like many countries did with Croatia and others, but annexation.

You’re creating a logical double bind here. (Or it’s the politicians that create it, we jsut stumble into it.)

“Yes we want the Crimeans to have self-determination. But Ukraine has to defend the integrity of its borders, so that can’t happen right now. Sorry. But we really want it to happen. But the Ukrainians have the right to stop it.” If you really want them to have a referendum, but then make it so that the only circumstances under which that can happen is if the Russians invade and that would be wrong, then you really don’t want them to have a referendum.

I also have a probem with that annexation-independence argument. If Crimeans want to become part of Russia, is it annexation? Isn’t that just the inbaked rhetorical trick to make Putin look bad? If North Ireland has a referendum and chooses to become part of Ireland, that’s not Ireland annexing it.

The Crimean tatars were deported in the 50s, and they later returned. I don’t think there was a genocide unless ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. And Russians already formed the majority in Crimea in the 19th century, they started immigrating there in the 18th century. That’s the messy history. The Crimean Tatars are no saints, they organized slave raids against Russian farmers until way into the 18th century, they enslaved 3 million Russians. That’s the reason why the words slave and Slavic are so similar.

edit: not to say what was done to Crimean Tatars doesn’t matter, but there are historical grievances on all sides

[Christian]

Anonymous wrote:

If you really want them to have a referendum, but then make it so that the only circumstances under which that can happen is if the Russians invade and that would be wrong, then you really don’t want them to have a referendum.

That’s because you’re creating a situation in which you’re allowing only two alternatives, and that is where you’re going wrong. How long did it take Scotland until they were allowed a referendum by the UK? I always supported their right to have a referendum, but wouldn’t have supported a military invasion by, I dunno, France, to make it happen.
*
It’s not an either/or situation where you either deny self-determination or support military invasion. There are diplomatic means and patience. I am a bit doubtful where Catalanian independence is concerned, for example, but I think it may be something to support. Doesn’t mean I’d support violence to achieve it.
*

If Crimeans want to become part of Russia, is it annexation? Isn’t that just the inbaked rhetorical trick to make Putin look bad?

You’re missing the point I was making. I was pointing out that there’s a difference between supporting another state’s independence and the desire to make them part of your own territory with reference to your treating Croatia and Crimea as equal cases.
*

Anonymous wrote:

The Crimean tatars were deported in the 50s, and they later returned.

Many of them did. Many didn’t. Depending on estimates, a quarter to half of them were killed.

edit: not to say what was done to Crimean Tatars doesn’t matter, but there are historical grievances on all sides

There are, but the end result of this is: the Russians deported an entire ethnic people, wiped out a great part of them and re-settled their land with ethnic Russians (which all pretty much makes it attempted genocide to my mind, but go with ethnic cleansing if you will). There’s only half the Tartar population there even now than used to be before the deportation. And now there is an easy majority for Crimea to become part of Russia. It doesn’t exactly leave a great taste.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Christian.

Christian wrote:

There are, but the end result of this is: the Russians deported an entire ethnic people, wiped out a great part of them and re-settled their land with ethnic Russians (which all pretty much makes it attempted genocide to my mind, but go with ethnic cleansing if you will). There’s only half the Tartar population there even now than used to be before the deportation. And now there is an easy majority for Crimea to become part of Russia. It doesn’t exactly leave a great taste.

Would you still hold the historical wrongs they committed against the Crimean Tatars to deny them their historical right though? You shouldn’t, neither should you hold Stalin’s policies against the Russians who live in Crimea now.

Yeah, like I said: In spite of this history, I would have been in favour of a peaceful progress towards Crimean independence or possibly its becoming part of Russia in the long run.

Again, I recommend anyone to watch Kotkin’s stuff. He’s not “pro Putin” (I’m really not though) like me, he is a great scholar with insight in the region.

edit: emmm I realize if you read that a certain way it looks like me claiming I’m a great scholar…I hope you don’t think I’m that retarded that I would claim that. I know nothing, I’m just talking my shitty opinion.

Tonight Johnson has done his best “I’m taking my ball and going home” routine with the Brexit deal legislation.

But there’s a sense that this is all spiralling out of his control now. By tacitly endorsing the deal but challenging the government’s preferred timetable to see the legislation through, parliament can’t now be characterised so easily as blocking Brexit. While Johnson is now the one “pausing” the legislation.

His tactics are becoming more transparent and I hope more people start to see them for what they are.

On Kotkin, you’ll be pleased to know Arian I sent that video to a friend of mine who’s an historian and he was ecstatic. He also said volume 1 of the Stalin book is fantastic.

Cool! I’ve been looking for good history books to read, I might buy it.

I think I need to give this thread a rest for a while, I’m probably sounding like a maniac.

I mean, I just assumed you were working for the KGB. Just like I work for Disney.

Israel? More likely to be the ones supplying the nukes on the quiet.

Christian wrote:

Generally speaking, sure. And I would be in favour of that even considering Russia’s double standards and even considering that the fact that the majority in Crimea is ethnically Russian is due to the fact that the Soviets committed genocide against the Tartar population in the thirties.
In spite of these things, I would support a peaceful progress towards Crimean independence or possibly its becoming part of Russia.
*
That is, however, a different thing from militarily invading a sovereign country with the aim of splitting off and annexing a part of it, like Russia did. And let’s remember that that’s what we’re talking about here – not supporting a right to independence, like many countries did with Croatia and others, but annexation.

I’m no Putin fan (he’s crazy, but in some ways, like a fox, but still crazy) but I’ve heard that The Treaty on the Creation of the USSR made Khrushchev’s transfer of the Crimea to Ukrainian SSR from the Russian SFSR illegal under the Soviet’s own laws. I mean, it would have been better if Putin had pointed that out to Ukraine and upon getting a negative response, did what he did, but technically it’s not annexation, but use of military power to obtain Russian Territory illegally held by Ukraine. I mean, jumping straight into “invasion” instead of trying to convince other countries that the Crimea is Russian Territory illegally held by Ukraine, and pressuring Ukraine with that is terrible, but it does cast Putin’s actions in a new light.

Fireworks fly at Sevier County Commission meeting

Comments made by a Sevier County commissioner drew applause from many but caused one woman to storm out Monday night. See his full comments here –>> https://bit.ly/2MyPIqc

Posted by WVLT on Isnin, 21 Oktober 2019

Ben wrote:

Israel? More likely to be the ones supplying the nukes on the quiet.

Yeah, Lorcan, about those supposedly non-existent leftist conspiracy theories….. it’s not like Turkish-Israeli relations were damaged single handedly by a certain Erdogan

Anonymous wrote:

Ben wrote:

Israel? More likely to be the ones supplying the nukes on the quiet.

Yeah, Lorcan, about those supposedly non-existent leftist conspiracy theories….. it’s not like Turkish-Israeli relations were damaged single handedly by a certain Erdogan

Because Ben is a leftist?
.
Do you know what leftist actually means?

I googled it and I suspect I remain unenlightened

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Do you know what leftist actually means?

Trump impeachment sees highest support ever in new poll

Meanwhile, president’s approval rating dips below 40 per cent

Impeaching Donald Trump is now more popular than ever, just a month after Democrats announced the inquiry into the president.

A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows support for impeachment rising to 55 per cent of Americans, with 43 per cent disapproving.

That marks a jump even from a week prior, when 51 per cent of Americans approved impeachment, while 45 per cent disapproved.

Broken down, the measure has varying levels of support across the ideological spectrum, with 86 per cent of Democrats supporting impeachment, along with 49 per cent of independents and just 6 per cent of Republicans.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

KalmanL wrote:

Ben wrote:

Israel? More likely to be the ones supplying the nukes on the quiet.

Yeah, Lorcan, about those supposedly non-existent leftist conspiracy theories….. it’s not like Turkish-Israeli relations were damaged single handedly by a certain Erdogan

Because Ben is a leftist?
.
Do you know what leftist actually means?

Sorry, I’m predisposed to think that if someone says something negative about Israel, it’s colored by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which, no, I don’t want to get in an argument about), so I took Ben as saying that if Israel is so uncaring about International law, they would sell nuclear weapons to Erdogan.
Now I realize that was an assumption on my part, and you know what they say about the word assume…….

[Ben]

Israel does a far better job of tarnishing itself on a regular basis. Netanyahu is a master at it.

Do they give a damn about international law? Not that I can see. They’ve been telling international law to go fuck itself for over 40 years.

On nuclear weapons, Israel developed them secretly, has them, everyone knows they have them but they still deny having them. So, having escaped international censure for doing this, why not quietly pass a few to Turkey if Turkey swears to fuck over Assad? Enemy of my enemy and all that. They’ll deny they did it, the US will back them, that in turn renders them immune to any consequence, Erdogan will walk around with a big shit-eating grin as if to say ‘what can you do?’ and the answer will be: Sweet fuck all.

That said, I’m not that worried about states going nuclear. If anyone was going to do a mutual nuclear exchange, India and Pakistan would be the front runners but MAD tends to be one hell of a sobering concept.

Where this puts on the political scale I’ve no idea. How many MAD advocates are left-wing?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Ben.

Turkey did take the additude of the enemy of my enemy, until Erdogan, who basically said “screw that”. It would not make sense for Israel to be try and get him back to his predecessors’ view, as it’s just too much of a gamble. Besides, there’s no evidence that Israel is producing more nukes, so given that all nukes are needed in case Operation: Samson is activated, the idea that they’d even sell nukes is laughable.

[Ben]

I’m not so sure, when you can practically get away with just about anything, all bets are off.

It’d be nice to be less cynical but after 20+ years of watching the Israel-Palestine conflict keep running in search of a mythical rock bottom while inflicting atrocity atop atrocity ion a bid to somehow ‘break’ the other, which each side must know isn’t going to work, it’s hard not to be.

Rabin? Might have actually sorted it out, so what happened there? Oh yeah…. Fuck.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Ben.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Ben.

It’s called the Samson Option, not Operation: Samson. It’s not something that’s live.

Ben wrote:

I’m not so sure, when you can practically get away with just about anything, all bets are off.

Again, given Erdogan’s history with Israel, Israel would be taking a huge gamble if they gave him nukes. He’s said that The enemy of my enemy no longer applies to Turkish-Israeli relations, so why should Israel give him that treatment? It doesn’t make sense for strategic reasons. Besides, if Erdogan would use them against Syria, he would distance himself from his borders to avoid fallout, and depending on where he strikes fallout might spread to Israel. Do you realize how close Damascus is to the Israeli border?

Oh? Well that changes the picture quite a bit then. A whole lot of Israeli politicians are Looney Tunes but probably not that much.

Netanyahu is only interim PM, Likud lost the last election, and the fact that Netanyahu is going to be charged with embezzlement charges has made a lot of their supporters see them as an unsustainable party in Knesset.

Except he has more political lives than a cat!

I’ll happily watch him go down in flames, but show me the body.

I more or less agree with Kalman. I can’t see Israel selling nukes to destabilise the region. It is against their interests.

Personally, I do not like Netanyahu but that’s not his style. It’s not something MBS would do either.

Anonymous wrote:

<iframe title=”MetalTrump – Peace Sells… but Who’s Buying? (Megadeth)” width=”1060″ height=”596″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/ui983Y99hFs?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

Holy shit, a new song from MAGADETH!!!

No but seriously… way to ruin a classic… u_u

Ben wrote:

Except he has more political lives than a cat!

I’ll happily watch him go down in flames, but show me the body.

Yeah, but when the general feeling of even Likud MKs is that even if he is found innocent, the allegations make him too toxic to lead the party or even stay in its upper echelons, it says something about how Israelis are feeling.

Jon wrote:

Holy shit, a new song from MAGADETH!!!

No but seriously… way to ruin a classic… u_u

You know it’s dark times when George Osborne sassing the government is enjoyable.

I think you’ll find the team @EveningStandard know the difference between a bill passing its second reading in the Commons and a bill passing Parliament. I know it’s been a while since the latter happened, but I’m happy to come in and explain how it’s done https://t.co/EiwcaYIGnD

— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) October 24, 2019

The French are having doubts about granting a Brexit extension…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50171649

Mr Macron is fed up with the more than three-year EU focus on Brexit and the ever-present threat of a no-deal scenario.

This could result in scenes of Brexiteers celebrating the taking back of our sovereignty by thanking the French government for forcing our Parliament to do something they don’t want to do. I would laugh if I wasn’t crying

Israel aren’t giving nukes to anyone. Or selling them to anyone. Israel (whoever is in power) wants a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. They are as worried about proliferation as anyone.

[JRCarter]

Opinion piece:

Donald Trump Mocks Black Americans by Evoking Emmett Till

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by JRCarter.

I sometimes wonder how much of Trump’s public screw-ups is the kind of private conversation that his government and it’s supporters have in private, and which escapes because he’s incapable of the kind of duplicity that politicians practice as a matter of course?
.
Hopefully most of the really bad stuff is him. And just him.

You bring up a good point, Steve. Because Trump has no self-filtering mechanism, he says what many other politicians (and apparently many Americans in general) think but won’t say out loud. It’s not that a huge percentage of people have suddenly become racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. — it’s more like they’ve always felt this way, but are only vocalizing it now because, well, the big guy in the White House says it, so it must be okay.

He needs to build a wall between his brain and his mouth- with a big door to allow the non-racist-sounding thoughts out. I’m sure Mexico, among others would be willing to pay for that wall.

SteveUK wrote:

Israel aren’t giving nukes to anyone. Or selling them to anyone. Israel (whoever is in power) wants a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. They are as worried about proliferation as anyone.

From that point of view, Netanyahu is even less likely to sell nukes- he made a statement last year that North Korea’s proliferation is leading to Iran’s program to work faster, and as North Korea is not in the Middle East, that says something about proliferation in the Middle East- in general, the nuclear status quo should be maintained

Anonymous wrote:

the nuclear status quo

Nukin’ all over the world?

That all who have nukes have them; no other country should make or receive nukes

Anonymous wrote:

He needs to build a wall between his brain and his mouth- with a big door to allow the non-racist-sounding thoughts out. I’m sure Mexico, among others would be willing to pay for that wall.

It wouldn’t need to be a big door.

So, what’s going on with the wall? Are people still chanting Build a Wall and Lock her Up at his rallies?

If so, that is so 2016

Anonymous wrote:

So, what’s going on with the wall? Are people still chanting Build a Wall and Lock her Up at his rallies?

If so, that is so 2016

Apparently it’s “complete the wall” or “finish the wall” now, presumably because enough people pointed out that a chunk of the border does have fences or walls, and it’s been absorbed into the narrative.

rory wrote:

KalmanL wrote:

He needs to build a wall between his brain and his mouth- with a big door to allow the non-racist-sounding thoughts out. I’m sure Mexico, among others would be willing to pay for that wall.

It wouldn’t need to be a big door.

True, but I was trying to get as close to the original Trump quote as possible, but without wasting time looking it up.

Also, the wall building is going so well that they’ve had to extend it to states that don’t share a border with Mexico, such as Colorado.

Andrew wrote:

Also, the wall building is going so well that they’ve had to extend it to states that don’t share a border with Mexico, such as Colorado.

Potheads, Mexicans, I doubt some enthusiastic Trump supporters know the difference.

A Xmas election that fucks over school nativity plays? Is Johnson insane?

Ben wrote:

A Xmas election that fucks over school nativity plays? Is Johnson insane?

Crazy like a fox. Given his incalculable number of children, this would nicely side-step the problem of having to go to several different primary school nativities and someone finding out about a love-child that got lost in the count.

Rep. Tim Ryan drops out of 2020 Democratic primary

Never really heard of this guy.

JRCarter wrote:

Rep. Tim Ryan drops out of 2020 Democratic primary

Never really heard of this guy.

I have, but only because he was on the Daily Show. His thing was going after the segment of the population who voted for Trump.

Andrew wrote:

Also, the wall building is going so well that they’ve had to extend it to states that don’t share a border with Mexico, such as Colorado.

Wait, what? Colorado isn’t a border state? Please tell me that Trump said his Wall is going to be so massive that it will reach Colorado or something.

As usual Trump made a mistake while speaking and now refuses to admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

So, what’s going on with the wall? Are people still chanting Build a Wall and Lock her Up at his rallies?

If so, that is so 2016

Yes to both.

Anonymous wrote:

I like Kotkin’s view on Russia and China, Russia is a mere distraction:

It depends. Currently, for a project I’m working on, I’ve done a lot of research on the Cold War and Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s and, to my surprise, I’ve discovered a lot of it was justified – however, the evidence for a lot of this didn’t become public until the 90’s and by then the accepted mainstream view of “McCarthyism,” hysteria and “witch hunts” was already entrenched in the media and academic circles (where many of the accused communists ended up). Now, many of the accused were former communists who had worked with the Soviet Union’s intelligence services before, during and not long after the war, but who had also become disillusioned by the obvious failure of communism to support democracy, liberty and even the lives of many people who had fallen under communism in the aftermath of the war. However, there really were a lot of people still in the state department and government offices who were secretly passing information on to the Soviets and even Red China. Though we look back and see how “doomed” the Soviet Union was, communism at the time was dominating the world, and it is also easy to see how vulnerable Western nations actually were to infiltration simply because of the laws protecting individual rights and opinions that the communist nations didn’t have or respect. Just look at the story of Kim Philby, but realize that for all the traitors who were revealed while they were working in government, there were many many more that we’d only find out about long after the Soviet Union fell. And, of course, China’s communist party never collapsed and they were and probably continue to be just as dedicated to influencing and infiltrating Western government policies.

So, even though the Red Scare actually did a pretty good job of eradicating communism as an ideology that could thrive in the United States in the 20th Century, what it reveals to me now is how easy it was and still is for a foreign power to influence and attract people in democratic governments. Especially capitalist systems where the rewards of betrayal as well as the alienation of government bureaucracy and politics are strong factors. I believe Mao once wrote that “Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them.”

So, it is unwise to take lightly the likelihood that there actually are highly placed direct “assets” working for the benefit of our totalitarian or authoritarian enemies around the world. However, I think the indirect assets – people who benefit foreign interests even though they are not directly connected to or agents for those powers – often provide the most benefit for Russia and China. To be honest, I would put Clinton on that list before Gabbard.

Anonymous wrote:

It depends. Currently, for a project I’m working on, I’ve done a lot of research on the Cold War and Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s and, to my surprise, I’ve discovered a lot of it was justified – however, the evidence for a lot of this didn’t become public until the 90’s and by then the accepted mainstream view of “McCarthyism,” hysteria and “witch hunts” was already entrenched in the media and academic circles (where many of the accused communists ended up). Now, many of the accused were former communists who had worked with the Soviet Union’s intelligence services before, during and not long after the war, but who had also become disillusioned by the obvious failure of communism to support democracy, liberty and even the lives of many people who had fallen under communism in the aftermath of the war. However, there really were a lot of people still in the state department and government offices who were secretly passing information on to the Soviets and even Red China. Though we look back and see how “doomed” the Soviet Union was, communism at the time was dominating the world, and it is also easy to see how vulnerable Western nations actually were to infiltration simply because of the laws protecting individual rights and opinions that the communist nations didn’t have or respect. Just look at the story of Kim Philby, but realize that for all the traitors who were revealed while they were working in government, there were many many more that we’d only find out about long after the Soviet Union fell. And, of course, China’s communist party never collapsed and they were and probably continue to be just as dedicated to influencing and infiltrating Western government policies.

So, even though the Red Scare actually did a pretty good job of eradicating communism as an ideology that could thrive in the United States in the 20th Century, what it reveals to me now is how easy it was and still is for a foreign power to influence and attract people in democratic governments. Especially capitalist systems where the rewards of betrayal as well as the alienation of government bureaucracy and politics are strong factors. I believe Mao once wrote that “Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them.”

So, it is unwise to take lightly the likelihood that there actually are highly placed direct “assets” working for the benefit of our totalitarian or authoritarian enemies around the world. However, I think the indirect assets – people who benefit foreign interests even though they are not directly connected to or agents for those powers – often provide the most benefit for Russia and China. To be honest, I would put Clinton on that list before Gabbard.

That’s quite interesting. Regarding things like the red scare, I think the “common people” like me (and I assume you!) just don’t know what the heck is going on behind the scene. We rely on thoroughly untrustworthy media and journalism. Maybe in 50 years it will be clearer what was really going on in 2019.

Anonymous wrote:

We rely on thoroughly untrustworthy media and journalism.

Exactly. Everything from CNN to Fox is Fake News. Everything is either propaganda or made to get ratings.

Yes.

Therefore the only real news is what we can dream up.

I often say “The only ‘news outlets’ that try to report reality are those with a messed up sense of reality”

Well as the son of a journalist i think youre wrong

Anonymous wrote:

That’s quite interesting. Regarding things like the red scare, I think the “common people” like me (and I assume you!) just don’t know what the heck is going on behind the scene. We rely on thoroughly untrustworthy media and journalism. Maybe in 50 years it will be clearer what was really going on in 2019.

I don’t think that is true for two reasons. One is that the US has the Freedom of Information act that means that any document is declassified and available to everyone at some point.

The other is that when it comes to issues like this that reach back half a century, there are not just media but also academic studies that will have examined these issues extremely closely.
*
So at this point, when it comes to an issue like this, you can actually inform yourself very well, if you’re willing to put in the effort.

Christian wrote:

One is that the US has the Freedom of Information act that means that any document is declassified and available to everyone at some point.

Is it true that it is any document? Can’t they redact things for reasons of “national security”? Which seems reasonable, but then you’ve got to trust the people deciding what constitutes “national security”.

No it is not any document. There’s a presumption that the publication of any document is in the public interest, but that presumption can be rebutted upon application.

If the US is anything like Australia, it can sometimes take months to publish a document requested under FOI.

No it is not any document. There’s a presumption that the publication of any document is in the public interest, but that presumption can be rebutted upon application.

If the US is anything like Australia, it can sometimes take months to publish a document requested under FOI.

DavidM wrote:

s it true that it is any document? Can’t they redact things for reasons of “national security”? Which seems reasonable, but then you’ve got to trust the people deciding what constitutes “national security”.

Well, in the sense of “at some point”. Like Tim says, you can deny a request for information for security reasons, but that doesn’t really last forever. The thing is that it gets harder the more time passes to keep documents classified.

Executive Order 13526 establishes the mechanisms for most declassifications, within the laws passed by Congress. The originating agency assigns a declassification date, by default 10 years. After 25 years, declassification review is automatic with nine narrow exceptions that allow information to remain as classified. At 50 years, there are two exceptions, and classifications beyond 75 years require special permission. Because of changes in policy and circumstances, agencies are expected to actively review documents that have been classified for fewer than 25 years. They must also respond to Mandatory Declassification Review and Freedom of Information Act requests. The National Archives and Records Administration houses the National Declassification Center to coordinate reviews and Information Security Oversight Office to promulgate rules and enforce quality measures across all agencies. NARA reviews documents on behalf of defunct agencies and permanently stores declassified documents for public inspection. The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel has representatives from several agencies.

(wiki)

Christian wrote:

I don’t think that is true for two reasons. One is that the US has the Freedom of Information act that means that any document is declassified and available to everyone at some point.

edit: After reading your post again, I think we don’t disagree at all. I think we’ll have more clarity about what happened in our current age when some time has passed, like Johnny said about the truth of the red scare. When things get declassified and historians study it. Maybe in 50 years we’ll finally see how noble and altruistic Trump and Putin really were, and how Hillary was an evil hag. ;)

Christian wrote:

Well, in the sense of “at some point”. Like Tim says, you can deny a request for information for security reasons, but that doesn’t really last forever. The thing is that it gets harder the more time passes to keep documents classified.

Assuming that the person requesting knows the existence of the document, that it was filed correctly and hasn’t been buried, lost or made otherwise irretrievable, or that it hasn’t been destroyed.

Naturally, it only applies to actual government documents, though. There is no provision that allows freedom of information on organization that have significant political influence. Even if you’ve been blacklisted by organizations like the NRA or Southern Poverty Law Center, you have no right to see anything related to their internal discussions about you despite their “opinions” having significant effect on the politics of the country. Same for political parties, of course, so we rely on the publication of leaked documents to see how any of them really work.

However, usually it’s the leakers rather than the organizations whose secrets have been revealed that suffer for it. In addition to Assange and Snowden, look at the cases of Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling and John Kiriakou. They were all criminally charged in the courts and suffered a lot of criticism in the press. Seems like the only way to avoid going to jail and getting your name smeared everywhere in the news media is to be a whistleblower against Trump.

I’m pretty sure government institutions have never destroyed information to avoid getting caught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Really these things are not run in any ethically responsible way, it’s pretty much the mafia. It is with Trump, it would have been with Hillary, it was with Obama, it was with Bush, Clinton and so forth.

It should extend to government communic actions between corporates. With all the usual exceptions applied.

It gets a little more complicated because corporate interest by definition is private interest. It’s a very interesting topic.

Talking about non- organizations not being able to to be forced to release information, isn’t it discrimination that if a billionaire would be willing to pay Scientology for the scriptures they allow high ranking members access to, even if they payed all the prices to reach that level, they have to convert first. If you’re selling a work, isn’t it discrimination to deny access to people who don’t belong to the”right” religion? And before you go on about how they can never be sure, given the amount of money one needs to drop on that info, couldn’t a rich person or organization hire the right lawyers, if they’re willing to drop that amount of money?

The nuclear treaties are kind of odd. How do you justify countries that have nukes telling others they can’t have nukes while simultaneously threatening to attack them for some bullshit?

These treaties are usually unilateral, or multilateral.

When they’re bilateral, like with US and Iran, they contain other agreed terms to facilitate the disarmament.

Democrat Katie Hill Says She’ll Quit Congress in Sex Scandal

She was also on one of the panels investigating Trump. And this comes a few weeks after Elijah Cummings passes away.

That is awful.

I can see why she stepped down but a large part of me wishes she would fight it, because she hasn’t really done anything wrong – she was going through a divorce anyway.

OK, WTF?

Police investigating ‘Kill Gina Miller’ crowdfunding page

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603
.
The delay is agreed in principle, but we’re not Brexiting this week.
.
The mess rumbles on.

JRCarter wrote:

OK, WTF?

Police investigating ‘Kill Gina Miller’ crowdfunding page

Batman might have to change the “cowardly” part of his assessment of criminals to “Stupidly bold”.

SteveUK wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603
.
The delay is agreed in principle, but we’re not Brexiting this week.
.
The mess rumbles on.

Cut the Gordian knot already…

Anyone got a suitable ditch for a PM to fall into?

U.S. Democrats push to hear from former Trump aide Bolton in impeachment probe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic lawmakers have summoned several little-known U.S. officials to testify this week in their impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump but have their eye on a more prominent player – former national security adviser John Bolton.